This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/17/2021 at 05:36:58 (UTC).

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS DESTINY SALGADO, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 01/03/2020 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against DESTINY SALGADO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0048

  • Filing Date:

    01/03/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendants

SALGADO DESTINY

SALCEDO ROSARIO

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SCHOECK MICHAEL D.

Defendant Attorney

BURGOS RICHARD

 

Court Documents

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

11/13/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

11/13/2020: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF TRISTAN P ESPINOSA ESQ ISO MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S ADMITTED

11/13/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF TRISTAN P ESPINOSA ESQ ISO MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S ADMITTED

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11/13/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

1/11/2021: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

2/23/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

2/26/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/26/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES

6/10/2021: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES

Answer - Answer

7/6/2020: Answer - Answer

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

4/28/2020: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

3/2/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

3/2/2020: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Answer - Answer

3/2/2020: Answer - Answer

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

2/5/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

2/5/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

1/3/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons on Complaint

1/3/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

10 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/04/2022
  • Hearing03/04/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/06/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 06/10/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2021
  • DocketPursuant to written stipulation, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Party was rescheduled to 03/04/2022 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: DESTINY SALGADO (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted scheduled for 02/23/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 02/23/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2021
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2021
  • DocketThere being no judge available this date, Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted scheduled for 01/13/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 02/23/2021 10:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted scheduled for 01/13/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
11 More Docket Entries
  • 02/05/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: ROSARIO SALCEDO (Defendant); Service Date: 01/29/2020; Service Cost: 79.50; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/06/2023 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: DESTINY SALGADO (Defendant); ROSARIO SALCEDO (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: DESTINY SALGADO (Defendant); ROSARIO SALCEDO (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2020
  • DocketDeclaration DECLARATION OF VENUE; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: DESTINY SALGADO (Defendant); ROSARIO SALCEDO (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: DESTINY SALGADO (Defendant); ROSARIO SALCEDO (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC00048    Hearing Date: February 23, 2021    Dept: 25


Case Number: 20STLC05562    Hearing Date: February 23, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., February 23, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Schoolsfirst Federal Credit Union v. Purvis, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC05562 COMP. FILED: 07-02-20

NOTICE: OK DISC. C/O: 11-30-21

DISC. MOT. C/O: 12-15-21

TRIAL DATE: 12-30-21

PROCEEDINGS: APPLICATION FOR COURT ORDER GRANTING RELIEF UNDER 50 U.S.C.A. § 3952

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Schoolsfirst Federal Credit Union

RESP. PARTY: None

APPLICATION FOR COURT ORDER UNDER 50 U.S.C.A. § 3952

(50 U.S.C.A. § 3952)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Application for Court Order Granting Relief Under 50 U.S.C.A. § 3952 is CONTINUED TO APRIL 20, 2021 AT 10:00 A.M. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental papers as requested herein. Failure to do so may result in the Application being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of February 18, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 18, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On July 2, 2020, Plaintiff Schoolsfirst Federal Credit Union (“Plaintiff”) filed an action to quiet title against Raijon Justin Purvis aka Raijon J. Purvis (“Purvis”) and the State of California, acting by and through the California Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”).

On July 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Application for Court Order Granting Relief Under U.S.C.A. § 3952 (the “Application”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

On October 30, 2020, default was entered against Defendant Purvis.

  1. Legal Standard

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act provides, in part, for the temporary suspension of judicial and administrative proceedings and transactions that may adversely affect the civil rights of servicemembers during their military service. (50 U.S.C.A §§ 3901, 3902.) With respect to certain installment contracts, 50 U.S.C.A. § 3952 provides as follows:

“(a) Protection upon breach of contract

(1) Protection after entering military service - After a servicemember enters military service, a contract by the servicemember for--

(A) the purchase of real or personal property (including a motor vehicle); or

(B) the lease or bailment of such property, may not be rescinded or terminated for a breach of terms of the contract occurring before or during that person's military service, nor may the property be repossessed for such breach without a court order.

(2) Applicability - This section applies only to a contract for which a deposit or installment has been paid by the servicemember before the servicemember enters military service.

(b) Misdemeanor - A person who knowingly resumes possession of property in violation of subsection (a), or in violation of section 3918 of this title, or who knowingly attempts to do so, shall be fined as provided in Title 18, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(c) Authority of court - In a hearing based on this section, the court--

(1) may order repayment to the servicemember of all or part of the prior installments or deposits as a condition of terminating the contract and resuming possession of the property;

(2) may, on its own motion, and shall on application by a servicemember when the servicemember's ability to comply with the contract is materially affected by military service, stay the proceedings for a period of time as, in the opinion of the court, justice and equity require; or

(3) may make other disposition as is equitable to preserve the interests of all parties.”

  1. Discussion

This action arises from the purchase of a vehicle. Specifically, on or about August 16, 2018, Plaintiff and Defendant Purvis entered into a written Consumer Truth-in-Lending Disclosure (the “Agreement”) for the purchase of a used 2017 Dodge Charger, VIN No. 2C3CDXBGOHH666839 (the “Vehicle”). (Mot., p. 3:3-8, Sanchez Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. 1.) The Agreement required Defendant Purvis to make monthly payments of $465.65 until September 25, 2024. (Id.) The Agreement also includes the following provision:

“When you are in default, we may demand immediate payment of the outstanding balance of the Loan without giving you advance notice and take possession of the Property without judicial process if this can be done without breach of the peace. If we ask, you promise to deliver the vehicle or boat, you agree that we may obtain a key or other device necessary to unlock and operate it, when you are in default…After we have possession of the Property, we can sell it and apply the money to any amounts you owe us. We will give you notice of any public disposition or the date after which a private disposition will be held. Our expenses for taking possession of and selling the Property will be deducted from the money received from the sale…” (Id.)

Plaintiff does not seek any monetary judgment against Defendant Purvis; it only seeks relief under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and an order quieting title of the Vehicle in Plaintiff’s name alone. (Compl., ¶ 11, Prayer, ¶¶ 1-2.) With this Application, Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court permitting the Vehicle to be sold under 50 U.S.C.A. § 3952(c)(3) to mitigate its losses. (Mot., p. 6:3-15.) Notably, Plaintiff states that Defendant Purvis voluntarily handed possession of the Vehicle to Plaintiff on or about April 18, 2020. (Mot., Sanchez Decl., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff also presents evidence that Defendant Purvis has been on active duty since September 4, 2019. (Id. at ¶ 10, Exh. 3.)

Plaintiff provides a declaration from Doris Sanchez, a Collections Recovery Supervisor, who states that Defendant Purvis defaulted on the terms, conditions, and covenants of the Agreement by failing and refusing to make the monthly payments due and owing since May 2019. (Id. at ¶ 8.) However, Plaintiff has not provided any documentary evidence, such as a past-due bill or an account ledger, demonstrating Defendant Purvis has not made any payments since May 2019. Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve supplemental papers demonstrating Defendant Purvis is in default.

Plaintiff is also ordered to provide supplemental briefing regarding the propriety of obtaining an order to sell and dispose of the Vehicle before the Court has made any determination as to Plaintiff’s request to quiet the title of the Vehicle.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Application for Court Order Granting Relief Under 50 U.S.C.A. § 3952 is CONTINUED TO APRIL 20, 2021 AT 10:00 A.M. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental papers as requested herein. Failure to do so may result in the Application being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC00048    Hearing Date: February 22, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., February 23, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Salgado, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC00048 COMPL. FILED: 01-03-20

NOTICE: OK DISC. C/O: 06-02-21

DISC. MOT. C/O: 06-17-21

TRIAL DATE: 07-02-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendant Destiny Salgado is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $360.00 to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of service of this order.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of February 17, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 17, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On January 3, 2020, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Destiny Salgado (“Salgado”) and Rosario Salcedo (“Salcedo”) (collectively, “Defendants”). On July 6, 2020, Defendants filed a joint Answer.

On November 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Requests for Admission

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Id. at subd. (b).) A motion dealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses, does not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding party. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973]. There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters deemed admitted must be made. (Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel’s office served Defendant Salgado’s counsel with Requests for Admission, Set One, on August 4, 2020. (Mot., Espinosa Decl., ¶ 1., Exh. A.) On September 3, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel granted Defendant’s counsel an extension to respond until September 17, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 3.) On September 18, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel denied a second extension but agreed to refrain from filing a discovery motion with the understanding that complete and substantive responses without objections would be served no later than October 1, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Plaintiff’s counsel received Defendant Salgado’s responses to the Requests for Admission on October 1, 2020, which contained only objections and no substantive responses. (Id. at ¶ 7, Exh. B.) Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel a letter explaining that because the responses were not timely served, Defendant Salgado had waived all objections. (Id. at ¶¶ 8-9, Exh. C.) To date, Defendant Salgado has not served any substantive responses. (Id. at ¶ 10.)

The Court must grant an order deeming requests for admission admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Section 2033.220 requires that each answer “(1) [a]dmit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party[;] (2) [d]eny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue [; or] (3) [s]pecify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (b).) Here, Defendant Salgado’s responses contain only objections. Thus, the responses are not in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted against Defendant Salgado. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

B. Request for Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Furthermore, it is “mandatory that the Court impose a monetary sanction…on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

The Court finds Defendant Salgado's failure to timely respond to Plaintiff’s discovery request with code compliant responses a misuse of the discovery process. In addition, the Court is required to impose a monetary sanction on Defendant Salgado for her failure to respond to the Requests for Admission under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).

Plaintiff’s counsel requests a total of $460.00 based on two hours of attorney time billed at $200.00 per hour and one filing fee of $60.00. (Mot., Espinosa Decl., ¶¶ 11-13.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of this Motion and the lack of opposition and reply. The Court finds $360.00, based on 1.5 hours of attorney time and one filing fee, to be reasonable. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendant Destiny Salgado is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $360.00 to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of service of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SCHOECK MICHAEL D